14-571
================================================================
In The
CAROLE M. STANYAR
Counsel of Record
221 N. Main St., Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(313) 819-3953
cstanyar@wowway.com
ROBERT A. SEDLER
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL
471 W. Palmer St.
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577-3968
Counsel for Petitioners
April 17, 2015
================================================================
COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
2002) ..........................................................................6
(2010) .......................................................................10
iii
Page
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
(1966) .........................................................................9
(2014) .......................................................................23
iv
Page
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. amend. I ..................................................23
STATUTES
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1
INTRODUCTION
Despite the States efforts to justify excluding
same-sex couples from marriage, it remains clear that
Michigans marriage bans violate the Fourteenth
Amendment. The States insistent refrain is that the
question whether same-sex couples have a right to
marry is one for voters and legislators, not for this
Court. But it is the office of this Court to enforce
Petitioners constitutional rights to liberty and equal
ity. The marriage bans violate these mutually rein
forcing guarantees, which together demand respect
for the personal bond shared by two adult persons
of the same sex who love and commit their lives to
one another. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567,
575 (2003). The bans deny these adults the ability to
obtain any legal recognition for their relationships.
They deny same-sex couples access to the one institu
tion marriage that affirms the dignity of a loving
adult couples enduring bond, id. at 567, and the
countless protections and benefits that marriage
guarantees.
I. The Marriage Bans Violate Fundamental
And Reinforcing Principles Of Equality
And Liberty Which Limit State Action
A. The State Concedes The Marriage
Bans Inflict Substantial Harms
The State never denies the real harms inflicted
by depriving same-sex couples of access to marriage.
Marriage confers both significant protection[s] and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
court of appeals should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH M. MOGILL
MOGILL, POSNER & COHEN
27 E. Flint St., 2nd Floor
Lake Orion, MI 48362
(248) 814-9470
DANA M. NESSEL
NESSEL & KESSEL LAW
645 Griswold, Suite 4300
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 556-2300
MARY L. BONAUTO
GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES
& DEFENDERS
30 Winter St., Suite 800
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 426-1350
CAROLE M. STANYAR
Counsel of Record
221 N. Main St., Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(313) 819-3953
cstanyar@wowway.com
ROBERT A. SEDLER
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL
471 W. Palmer St.
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577-3968
Counsel for Petitioners
April 17, 2015